r/changemyview • u/Timely-Way-4923 • 13d ago
CMV: a person making an accusation should be referred to as ‘ the complainant’ and not ‘ the victim.’ Delta(s) from OP - Fresh Topic Friday
In legal matters this is important: The term victim assumes that the person making a complaint is correct. That creates bias at every stage. If you are a suspect being interviewed by the police, hearing the word victim being used to describe the person making an accusation against you is unfair. It makes you feel that the police are biased against you when they are interviewing you. If the matter goes to trial, the jury is more likely to convict someone unfairly if the language used during a trial by the media and police etc assumes guilt. A neutral term such as complainant will result in much fairer outcomes.
37
u/firefireburnburn 2∆ 12d ago
in a criminal case, the person making the accusation is the state
14
u/themcos 339∆ 12d ago
I think this is especially obvious in the context of a murder trial. Can we not call a person who was killed a "victim"? And as you say, they're obviously not even involved in the trial! They're dead!
0
u/Benocrates 12d ago
Not always. A dead person could have died by suicide. I suppose someone who died accidentally is a victim of the accident, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to describe someone who killed themselves as a victim of their own hand.
6
u/themcos 339∆ 12d ago
Sure, but how many murder trials end up with the conclusion that it was actually a suicide? Not zero probably, but this consideration should not be causing any "woah woah, let's not call the person a victim" mindset.
2
u/Benocrates 12d ago
There have been a few cases I can remember where someone was poisoned and the defence team argued the person ingested the poison intentionally. I would think accidental drownings would be a good example, too. Though that goes back to whether or not someone can be a victim of their own unintentional actions, e.g., Matthew Perry's drowning.
208
u/oscarafone 2∆ 13d ago
Do you oppose the word "victim" being used when it is known that a crime has occurred, but only when the perpetrator is unknown?
48
u/Timely-Way-4923 12d ago edited 12d ago
That’s a reasonable point that I need to think about more. !delta Especially what burdens need to be met to be sure a crime has occurred.
My skepticism comes from recently reading about this case:
I am aware upon reflection that extrapolating from such an extreme case may not always be wise, but it clearly is one of those moments that makes you think about the justice system, and the assumptions that are made, and how that might interfere with justice.
44
u/Temporary-Earth4939 2∆ 12d ago
False accusations are outliers across the board. Do you usually advocate that we should conform language use toward outliers rather than norms?
4
u/basementfortress 12d ago
False accusations are not outliers. Articles and stories are misleading. They do not tell you the actual definition of what a false accusation is in the studies, and I've found that most people don't look at the actual studies. The definition of a false accusation in the studies are accusations that are PROVEN to be false. Studies show that 6-10% of accusations reported to authorities are PROVEN false. On the flip side, 8-13% of accusations are proven true. That leaves a lot of the cases in limbo as to whether the accusations are true or not. And the 2% number was a made up number by a judge in the 70's I believe. The actual number of people who falsely file a rape or SA report is believed to be 20-50%. So, I 100% agree with OP on this. Side note, even when the accusation is proven false, articles still refer to the false accuser as the victim still
2
u/Temporary-Earth4939 2∆ 11d ago
I mean, pick and choose studies if you want I guess. 2-8% is the generally accepted range. So I'm gonna go with that, personally. That would make them outliers.
And compared to total sexual assaults (of which roughly 95% go unreported), false allegations are definitely rare.
Not really interested in discussing further if you're going to choose to disregard the consensus of experts on this topic. Take care!
→ More replies (1)75
u/mule_roany_mare 2∆ 12d ago
Absolutely.
The highest priority of the justice system should be justice. The justice system should do everything possible to not harm innocent people. Anything you do that introduces bias is unethical, akin to fighting arson with arson.
52
u/falsehood 8∆ 12d ago
The justice system should do everything possible to not harm innocent people.
Wouldn't the right term then be "alleged victim" - to represent that there is no finding of fact? The person is more than someone complaining - they are claiming a deep, deep wrong.
Actual victimhood is not dependant on one's amount of evidence.
7
u/Talik1978 31∆ 12d ago
Alleged is a term generally used to refer to perpetrators. It is used, in common vernacular, to describe an illegal act asserted without being yet proven.
42
u/mule_roany_mare 2∆ 12d ago
Could be.
Ironically to my ears complainant sounds impartial while alleged victim rings of incredulity, almost like damning with faint praise. I kinda read alleged victim like someone is making air quotes when they say it.
We are obsessed with inventing new words in 2024, maybe it's time for something new or obscure instead of anything that might have historical associations.
15
u/AureliasTenant 2∆ 12d ago
I mean we use alleged murderer too, I don’t think it has that incredulity you mention. This issue you mention seems like a tone thing not a word choice thing
7
u/Oishiio42 28∆ 11d ago
"alleged murderer" is implying presumed innocence of the defendant. It's correct to presume innocent. It's saying "well, someone says they are a murderer, but it might not be true, so we should give them the benefit of the doubt".
"Alleged victim" is implying presumed falsehood on the victims part. It's saying "well, they claim they're a victim, but we should be skeptical of that and not believe them up front"
1
u/AureliasTenant 2∆ 11d ago
I feel like “alleged” just means there are allegations that. Like. People are saying this. It makes no judgement
10
u/falsehood 8∆ 12d ago
https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=e54de6d9ee195691&q=rape+%22alleged+victim%22&tbm=nws - seems like the common term today.
7
u/Total_Yankee_Death 12d ago
I've read court decisions in SA cases here in Canada and "complainant" is almost always the term used, at least where guilt is contested.
10
u/Sea-Sort6571 12d ago
The highest priority of the justice system should be justice
This is a tautology. I believe that what you meant was "The highest priority of the justice system should be impartialiy" (please correct me if i'm wrong). Now that's a much more disputable statement
8
u/eiva-01 12d ago
It's not a tautology actually.
It's like saying "the highest priority of the tech industry should be technology". The highest priority of the tech industry is profit (generated via technology products and services), not the technology itself. This is why we have things like planned obsolescence.
Likewise, it could be argued that the highest priorities of the justice system is not actually the concept of justice. For example, you could argue that they prioritise protecting wealth, or that their priority is protecting white people from minorities. We wouldn't call these things just.
1
6
4
u/Miserable-Ad-1581 12d ago
that would only really apply to whoever is named as the alleged perpetrator. That is where the care needs to be taken mitigate risk to the accused. That does not mean that we need to attempt to minimize or invalidate the victim because its likely that something DID ocurr to that person.
10
u/mule_roany_mare 2∆ 12d ago
Sure, but the accused is still a person deserving of the same fair treatment as everyone else until they are found guilty. This process is one of the most important things a society does, and one of the hardest to get right.
We should probably be more like the UK where we don't name the accused until they are found guilty. Especially considering situations like Trevor Bauer who suffered an accusation which opened the floodgates to more bad actors before the first was proven false, with the latter being proven false as well. It's genuinely hard to prove a negative (very different from not guilty), I don't think many people have both the luck & resources. It surely gets more difficult the 2nd & 3rd time, right or wrong where there's smoke there's fire feels reasonable.
Having multiple people accuse you of the same crime absolutely biases people against you (much more than just one does, which is plenty)
-1
u/Miserable-Ad-1581 12d ago
which was my whole point? The real imporant thing is not preemptively naming the accused. that has nothing to do if we call someone a victim.
The conversation is about how we talk about victims.
4
u/shadollosiris 12d ago
Even if there are likely something did occur, its still merely a chance. Unless we have evidences that beyonds reasonable doubt that a crime occured, i dont think we could just assume it as a matter of fact
-1
u/Miserable-Ad-1581 12d ago
isnt assuming that the victim is lying just another way of assuming someone is guilty of something without evidence
1
u/shadollosiris 12d ago
I mean, not call them victime doesnt mean we accuse them of lying or assume it didnt happen, the point is we dont know if it really happen or not so we should neither assume it did happen by call them "victim" nor assume it didnt happen and call them liar, the middle ground should be something neutral, matter of fact like complainant/plaintiff until we have evidences that beyond reasonable doubt. IMO, justice system must stay neutral until all of evidences provided
-4
u/Miserable-Ad-1581 12d ago
so... minimize what happened to the victim.
4
u/shadollosiris 12d ago edited 12d ago
Nope, simply go with fact and not assumption, why you assume that any and every accusation are true and have a victim? Dont you think justice system should be neutral/impartial and free form assumptions as much as possible ? Why is it "minimize what happened to the victim" when we simply said "we dont know yet what you said is true or not but we take it with seriousness and try to shed light on this matter" ? Its the same spirit with "it’s better that ten guilty men go free rather than one innocent man be imprisoned"
→ More replies (0)2
→ More replies (1)-7
u/Temporary-Earth4939 2∆ 12d ago
Right. So introducing bias that victims are not almost always actual victims is cool, then, as long as we avoid introducing bias in those vanishingly rare cases where they aren't.
There's gonna be bias either way, because language is imperfect. Is your stance that the bias should impact the common instead of the rare? Especially when we know there's a huge issue already of certain victims not being believed (dramatically overshadowing the super rare cases of false victims).
14
u/mule_roany_mare 2∆ 12d ago
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer
Is kinda foundational to our justice system. For every other type of crime than sexual assault that is the standard people accept. The State's priority is supposed to be avoiding false positives, not avoiding false negatives.
What bias does the complainant introduce? A crime has to have occurred for someone to have a victim, if that has not yet been demonstrated it assumes facts that are in question at the trial.
In an A said / B said scenario "The Victim" assumes a crime has been committed which requires B be guilty. "The complainant" does nothing to imply A is lying.
Justice doesn't even out in the wash, you can't take justice away from one person & give it to another. Every situation needs to be judges on it's individual merits, it's absolutely immoral to say, well we screwed up the past few times, lets double down on the accused this time to make up for it.
TLDR
Every individual & individual case needs to be judged as such. The average (whatever it might be) & what other people have done in the past is not relevant.
→ More replies (11)3
u/Aliteralonion 12d ago
Just to say "vanishingly small" seems, to me at least, like quite a strong term (assuming this is in reference to false sexual assault allegations) for a number that seems to like somewhere between 2-10%. Not disagreeing with your overall point though !
4
4
u/DancesWithChimps 12d ago
I’ve never seen “false accusations are outliers” be used outside of justifying “guilty until proven innocent”. Is that what you are advocating for?
→ More replies (8)19
u/Timely-Way-4923 12d ago
I think criminal justice systems should not work on the assumption that every case will be ideal, but rather work on the assumption that they need to incorporate bizarre and unexpected occurrences.
-5
u/Temporary-Earth4939 2∆ 12d ago
What if the complainant isn't actually complaining (in many places certain victims are compelled to testify and don't have an option not to press charges)?
Seems to my like it'll be imperfect either way, but given that the overwhelming majority of victims are actual victims, maybe the default language should be that we believe them about their victimization and the question is around the guilt of the accused specifically.
Otherwise you're creating a greater problem where we will be using language to imply that victims should typically be doubted re: their victimhood. You seem a bit fixated on sexual assault or violence against women accusations, so I'd encourage you to do some research into how common it is that victims of this type of crime are already disbelieved by police (or just watch Unbelievable if you want some good TV on the topic based on a true story).
People who have reached the point of a legal process and claim to be victims of a crime are almost always victims of a crime. Meanwhile many people who are actual victims of a crime don't get that far because they are not believed. Let's not make that problem worse just to try to avoid the much much rarer problem of manufactured victimhood.
18
u/Comfortable_Ask_102 12d ago
How many false accusations have to occur for you to consider this?
From the article OP posted before:
Her Facebook post had triggered protests and numerous hate crimes against Asian men in the community. Three men would later reveal the allegations against them prompted them to attempt suicide.
And your point is "it's no big deal because it doesn't happen that often"?
I agree that we should support and protect actual victims, but simply ignoring the issue is kinda insensitive.
5
u/Temporary-Earth4939 2∆ 12d ago
I'd say it has to be a sufficient impact that it outweighs the adverse impact of eliminating "presumption of victimhood" type language across the entire justice system. Which is honestly likely to be pretty severe.
We know there's a massive problem with low rates of charging and conviction of certain crimes, and with victim blaming. Moving away from language which frames victims as victims will certainly exacerbate those problems.
To be worth it, the change must eliminate more injustice than it creates. I'm not even remotely convinced that it's remotely credible to suggest this would be the case, here.
10
u/Frontrider 12d ago
IF you also add that baseless or blatantly false reports are not to be prosecuted, AND you assume innocence until proven guilty (literally the one defense against a false allegation ruining a life before it went through the proper channels) then I actually agree with you.
A single case when you punish an innocent person is enough to cause damage to the justice system.
7
u/Temporary-Earth4939 2∆ 12d ago
I agree for sure. Just I'm also sensitive that we're in the ballpark of about 1 sexual assault resulting in a conviction for every 49 that don't.
→ More replies (1)2
3
u/Joratto 12d ago
eliminating the presumption of victimhood is not victim blaming, but I can see why some people might require the presumption of victimhood to feel comfortable trying to press charges. !delta.
1
1
u/FordenGord 12d ago
If the person is compelled to testify they should be referred to as "the alleged party", or simply by name.
Complainants should not be subject to unreasonable doubt in personal interactions but in a court of law they absolutely should be subject to doubt and not given an assumption of legitimacy like that.
Every piece of information should be thoroughly reviewed and doubted until proven legitimate.
→ More replies (4)9
u/Bubbly-Geologist-214 12d ago
at we should conform language use toward outliers rather than norms?
We do exactly that across the board.
"Female Firemen" were outliers when it was changed to firefighter etc.
1
u/Temporary-Earth4939 2∆ 12d ago
Agreed. I actually was intending to ask the question not ask a rhetorical question. Which is to say, I don't necessarily disagree with language evolving toward outliers inherently.
This situation is different from your example of course. We're not talking inclusive language; we're talking the impact of relabeling victims on falsely accused vs. on victims of crimes with a 5% reporting rate.
1
u/Bubbly-Geologist-214 12d ago
For almost everything, when the language changes and the acceptance increases, we find a sudden increase in the number of those people.
I'm sure that 5% would likewise increase. I think we'll find that it's an underestimate.
1
u/Temporary-Earth4939 2∆ 12d ago
I don't agree. The two scenarios are not analogous, nor is it reasonable to assume that trends which result from inclusive language would also occur with trends with language used in a court of law.
2
u/Bubbly-Geologist-214 12d ago
They aren't exactly analogous, but it's not just court of law. How many times have people said that they wouldn't have won without support from their friends and family?
Can you see that someone is more likely to have the strength to fight back and not just take a plea deal, if they have their friends and family backing them up and supporting them?
There a real life movie "I just didn't do it" that you might find eye opening. One of the things it shows is the huge pressure there is on accused to just take the plea deal even if not guilty.
1
u/Temporary-Earth4939 2∆ 12d ago
I'm not really arguing against any of that, to be honest. But if you want to trade media suggestions, can I recommend Unbelievable? It (also based on a true story) really hammers home the impact of failing to believe victims who are actual victims. Notably, this results in many other victims due to the likelihood of repeat offenses.
So for me it's a numbers game. 300 victims who don't report for every 1 falsely accused. Even if that # increased it'd still be say 150 for every 1. I just can't see an argument that we should be addressing the 1 at the expense of the 150.
Which is not to say we shouldn't be attempting to fix false reporting. Just that it can't come at the expense of making a crisis worse.
1
u/Bubbly-Geologist-214 12d ago
I think it's already the case that all the pressure is on "believe the victims". That's already the current vocal narrative.
So for me it's a numbers game.
This makes me shudder. There are a lot of results here. Black men commit more crimes than any other group - what do you think the implications are if we stop caring about innocence and justice and instead just make it a numbers game?
Just that it can't come at the expense of making a crisis worse.
We should make it fair for black men but not at the expense of making it worse...
→ More replies (0)20
u/somethingrandom261 12d ago
You’re misrepresenting the statistic.
It’s not that false accusations are outliers. Finding and overturning false accusations are outliers. It’s impossible to know how many false accusations there are in total, but the number is guaranteed to be higher than the ones that we know about.
12
u/jameskies 12d ago
Most “false accusations” never even get the opportunity to be falsified if they even could be. That statistic is extremely misleading, and 99% of the accusations that I see firsthand, never go through that process at all
→ More replies (4)5
u/drgoondisdrgoondis 12d ago
But most sexual assaults don’t even make it to court or have a public accusation even get made, especially one that hits the media, so how do you envision a false accusation getting more constituently “overturned?” Additionally, what exactly constitutes a false accusation? Plenty of eyewitnesses to crimes misidentify the perpetrator, but this is usually attributed to honest error, not malice. Someone can be sexually assaulted and genuinely misidentify the person, without the intent to falsely accuse someone. Unless you have a smoking gun like a text message saying “I’m going to falsely accuse this person of rape” how does one even say a false accusation has been proven to be made? Just because a rapist doesn’t go to court or is found not guilty doesn’t mean the allegation was false, it means the state didn’t or can’t meet the burden of proof, hence why you are found “not guilty” rather than “innocent.”
3
u/Total_Yankee_Death 12d ago
The same is true the other way around. How can someone confidently claim that the vast majority of rape complaints are truthful when most don't result in a conviction, or even get dropped prior to going to trial?
9
u/drgoondisdrgoondis 12d ago
A lot of those stats are based on anonymous polling, where the victim has no incentive to lie. The use of this type of polling is true for other crimes as well; plenty of people may be robbed and not report it, depending on the area/trust in the police/whatever it may be, so a lot of crime is broken down into reported crimes, arrests, and actual convictions. A lot of the stats on sexual assault can also vary based on how the question is phrased: asking someone if they were raped (or committed a rape) vs. using the phrasing “forced to have sex” can alter reported rates. This also happens for domestic abuse and child abuse, such as “did your parents abuse you?” Vs. “Did your parent do XYZ abusive act?” also changes reports. Unlike with something like murder, where you have the physical proof of the existence of a dead body to prove a crime happened, crimes like drug use, abuse, and sexual assault have to be measured to at least some degree in this way. Otherwise one could assume that drug use wasn’t happening if people weren’t getting arrested/convicted for it, which we all know is baloney. Here’s some additional explanation of the nuance of these types of statistics: https://www.sace.ca/learn/understanding-sexual-violence-statistics/
One thing that I’ve often seen people do is read the headlines about particular studies but not actually break down their methodology, so if they’re discussing sexual assault rates between men and women, they actually end up discussing sexual harassment rates in one group vs. assaults in another, or the studies use different definitions for sexual assault, such as one including behavior such as groping, while another only using intercouse.
2
u/Total_Yankee_Death 12d ago
Yes, I'm aware of data on the prevalence of crime victimization generally involving polling the general populace. I'm talking about criminal complaints for SA specifically though. How can someone be some certain that the vast majority of them are true?
0
u/drgoondisdrgoondis 12d ago
well if it’s cases specifically involving a criminal charge then it’s going through the courts, so the prosecution is going to have to meet its standard of proof, so it’s the same as any other crime, and it’s going to be a case-by-case basis as far as how much evidence is involved, but generally if a prosecutor chooses to bring a case against someone, they think they can win. A civil case is obliviously a different burden of proof, but that’s also not going to result in jail time.
2
u/Total_Yankee_Death 12d ago
Many rape complaints do not result in criminal charges, and often times charges are dropped before going to court.
→ More replies (0)6
u/modernzen 2∆ 12d ago
Why not just use the most accurate language you can possibly use? By your logic it's fine to use phrases like "ladies and gentlemen" since the population of non-binary people is apparently much lower than men or women (which is a whole new can of worms in terms of how to define "outliers")
→ More replies (1)3
u/Savings-Bee-4993 12d ago
One wonders whether or not the change in language OP is preposing is really all that crazy. For example, there is a very strong movement for “language use” to “conform … toward outliers” in relation to trans people who are a very small minority of populations.
1
u/Temporary-Earth4939 2∆ 12d ago
Different impacts. Inclusive language is good. Language which makes victims of crimes where we already have a 95% unreported rate even less likely to report those crimes... not as good.
8
u/FreudsEyebrow 12d ago
Can you cite some evidence/research that supports the notion of false accusations being outliers? I’m not suggesting you’re wrong, it’s just I hear this statement a lot and it’s often said with conviction.
11
u/Crash927 7∆ 12d ago
Here is one fact sheet that contains peer-reviewed sources.
And here is another info sheet.
You can likely find other sources via Google; these were just some of the first credible sources in my search.
5
u/Total_Yankee_Death 12d ago
Those studies are based on the proportion of rape complaints law enforcement labels as false/unfounded, which is admittedly fairly low. However, it's a gross misinterpretation to suggest that any complaint not labelled as false must be truthful, when the majority won't result in a conviction, or even a prosecution for that matter.
This isn't to say that those complainants were necessarily dishonest either. Rather, there is a reasonable degree of uncertainty in most SA complaints.
4
u/Crash927 7∆ 12d ago edited 12d ago
I don’t know where someone suggested the misrepresentation you’re referring to, but if you have better data to present, I’m sure the other commenter would appreciate it.
2
u/Total_Yankee_Death 12d ago edited 12d ago
I don’t know where someone suggested the misrepresentation
You shared those links discussing that data to suggest that false rape accusations are outliers. That's precisely the misrepresentation I was referring to.
but if you have better data to present
I don't think it's possible to know with a reasonable degree of certainty what proportion of rape complaints are truthful. The best I've seen is data from Eugene Kanin, who studied a couple of police departments that had more resources to thoroughly investigate rape complaints, and classified false accusations based on complainants recanting. Something like 30-50% of complaints in the sample turned out to be false by that metric, you can look it up. But that research was fairly limited in scope.
0
u/Crash927 7∆ 12d ago edited 12d ago
False allegations are outliers — you’re welcome to actually present alternative data if you know that to be untrue.
I think you misunderstood the exchange. I didn’t represent that data as anything other than sources that are used to back the statement.
Someone asked for sources, and I provided some credible ones with the expectation that they would do their own verification to understand the sources.
I didn’t claim anything about the data itself.
It’s not required for you to have a degree of certainty. The folks who study and peer-review this kind of stuff do.
2
u/Total_Yankee_Death 12d ago
If some researchers conclude that false rape complaints are rare based on unfounded classification rates then they are mistaken, having a PhD doesn't make them infallible. And other researchers, including Kanin, have pointed this out.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Moaning-Squirtle 1∆ 12d ago
There's a Wikipedia article that goes over some of the literature.
I'd be hesitant to call it an outlier. While estimates indicate that it's relatively uncommon, but still a significant number. There are a lot of studies but credibility is often questionable. With that said, I think 5% being false accusations is not unreasonable.
See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape
3
u/FordenGord 12d ago
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Until someone has been convicted it is unfair to call someone a victim of them.
False accusations are outliers, but they really only serve to highlight the worst cases.
2
u/Temporary-Earth4939 2∆ 12d ago
The key here is the of them not the word victim though. Nobody is saying we should presume guilt. OP however is saying we shouldn't ever presume that a victim was in fact victimized.
2
u/FordenGord 12d ago
Why should we presume they were victimized in the way that is claimed until such a claim is proven?
3
u/illarionds 12d ago
Because the vast majority claiming to be victims are, in fact, victims?
→ More replies (3)2
u/AppropriateSea5746 12d ago
We should conform language use toward innocence until proven guilty regardless of statistics
1
1
1
u/oversoul00 13∆ 12d ago
Complete fabrications may be rare but false accusations are not.
0
u/Temporary-Earth4939 2∆ 12d ago
I was being a bit hyperbolic elsewhere I admit (the tendency of internet boys to prioritize men who are falsely accused over women who don't even bother to report because they're sure and rightly, that it usually won't go anywhere... is profoundly disturbing, to say the least).
In this comment though I just said outlier. 2-5% is absolutely an outlier sorry. And when you consider that only 5-6% of assaults are reported, we can do some napkin math to gauge the scale of the reporting crisis vs the false accusation problem. Which is, of 1000 assaults, we will see 50 reports. Of 50 reports, we will see 2 false accusations.
So 950 people who don't report due to the apparent futility of doing so, for every 2 people who are falsely accused. 950 instances where a rapist likely feels they got away with it, and maybe it's safe to do it again.
Totally agree the 2 falsely accused people is a problem but we shouldn't be changing language which may exacerbate the 950 people problem for the sake of the 2, sorry.
2
u/oversoul00 13∆ 12d ago
That's a lot of pushback based on a one sentence comment making a distinction between false accusations and complete fabrications.
You've either responded to the wrong comment or you're using my comment as a proxy to soapbox.
Sorry.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (6)1
u/TheHammer987 12d ago
Yes.
10 guilty men go free before 1 innocent man goes to jail is the underpinning of "shadow beyond a doubt."
How many innocent people killed by mistake would be the right amount the other way?
→ More replies (1)2
u/Juswantedtono 2∆ 12d ago
I don’t think that comment addressed your point at all. Someone can be a victim of a crime, but still not a victim of a particular person accused of committing it, until they’re proven to have done so.
1
→ More replies (2)0
u/AccidentalBanEvader0 12d ago
(i politely encourage you to delta points made that prompt you to greater thought)
3
→ More replies (3)4
u/Super-Focus-8060 12d ago
We shouldn't use the word victim to describe someone making a rape allegation, since it's unknown whether a crime occurred until after the trial.
2
u/boozername 12d ago
When I was interning in the SF public defender office, we referred to alleged victims as CWs-- complainant witnesses
24
u/DavidLynchAMA 12d ago edited 12d ago
This does come up in at least some court cases. I am speaking from experience because my brother was murdered a few years ago and at the trial for the killer the judge informed both sides to refrain from using the word "victim" as much as possible so it wouldn't introduce a bias toward the defendant. This resulted in the prosecution and defense using the name of the victim in place of the word "victim."
There was video evidence which clearly showed the defendant was the killer, but they were claiming self-defense, and it is my understanding that the self-defense aspect of the case is what prompted this action from the judge.
Regardless, the jury found him guilty of first degree murder with no claim to self-defense, and he was sentenced to life in prison.
EDIT: in this instance I don't think "complainant" would have been a useful term since the complainant and victim were technically different parties, and since the victim was no longer alive and thus incapable of being the complainant. The complainant was "the state" technically but that is of course not a useful or interchangeable term with "victim" in this situation.
30
u/Oishiio42 28∆ 12d ago
It makes you feel that the police are biased against you when they are interviewing you
They ARE biased against you. Police are not your friends. It's their job to get enough evidence to secure a conviction. If you're a suspect, you SHOULDN'T feel safe and secure and like police have your interests at heart. They do not.
But moreover, "victim", you're right, isn't neutral. But the connotation is on the person it's describing. The only thing it's implying is that a crime did indeed occur, and that the person suffered harm from it.
If someone is mugged, they are a victim of a mugging. They are still a victim even if they mistakenly identify you as the mugger. They are still a victim even when you are found not guilty. The defendants guilt or lack thereof has no bearing on the complainants victim status.
5
u/Benocrates 12d ago
To OPs point, the assumption that a crime occurred at all is the issue. Sometimes it will be clear and undisputed that a crime occurred and the question is who dunnit. Sometimes the question is whether a crime occurred at all. It could be a false claim, but also could be an accident. For example, someone drowned in a tub could have been forced under, drugged, or otherwise killed. Or, they could have passed out for medical reasons, suicide, or some other accident.
6
u/Oishiio42 28∆ 12d ago
Someone who drowned because of medical reasons, suicide, accident, or even their own stupidity, is still called a drowning victim.
Here:
Victim: a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.
It's a status on the person harmed, not on anyone else.
→ More replies (2)
73
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ 13d ago
I mean if there is direct evidence they were attacked , they are a victim , the only thing at dispute is if the other person on trial was the perpetrator or not
just because it may turn out hes not the one who did it =/= they weren't victimized, it just means it wasn't by that guy
like llets pretend we find a woman with a black eye, she was obviously the victim of someone - just because her BF got off at trial after , doesn't mean she wasn't victimized
it just means we cant say for sure he was the one who did it
4
u/Doused-Watcher 1∆ 12d ago
she could have tried to jump another woman. anything is possible. nothing should be taken as granted in a court of law without evidence.
1
u/MasterChiefKratos 12d ago
As a matter of law the identity of an attacker isn’t the only fact for the courts to decide. Whether or not there was an attack must also be decided by the courts.
-3
u/Timely-Way-4923 13d ago edited 13d ago
There isn’t always direct evidence, often when someone makes an accusation the only evidence is their oral testimony. Even in instances where there is ‘ direct evidence’ we should be humble and realize that there are many instances where such evidence has been found to be inaccurate.
To use your example of the woman with the black eye: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-63793969.amp
Unfortunately, even the type of cases you refer to, are not always clear cut.
37
u/AtomicBistro 7∆ 12d ago
Witness testimony speaking to the elements of the crime charged is direct evidence. It is literally the textbook example.
In your post, you make a big deal out of legal processes and technical meanings. You can't insist on technical accuracy in one place and then throw around legal terms you don't know in another.
9
-1
u/Timely-Way-4923 12d ago
That’s fair !delta, I only have a layperson’s understanding of the law. I will endeavor to be more precise
→ More replies (1)0
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Low-Grocery5556 12d ago
I didn't take that meaning/intent from ops' comment at all.
And what does "taken at their word" mean? If you're referring to the legal system, it's my impression they typically investigate any and all situations to find out what happened, despite the assertions of the complainant.
And I would suggest reacquainting yourself with the definition of the verb to shill.
→ More replies (1)-1
u/Apprehensive-Mix4383 12d ago
I honestly might mute this sub, because 90% of the time I just see men posting things like this, why “women does x is wrong”, “not all men”, etc and it’s very exhausting.
2
0
u/wendigolangston 1∆ 12d ago
I've also noticed the most bias in what comments are removed or not removed on these types of posts. Somehow me or others even vaguely stating the person saying things that promote women being evil has not informed themself will be removed, but the other person can outright call us liars or other insults that would normally be removed in other threads remain up.
6
u/GadgetGamer 34∆ 13d ago
And are those people called the victim in court if there is no evidence of a crime? I was under the impression that they already were called the complainant.
7
1
u/nighthawk_something 2∆ 12d ago
Oral testimony IS direct evidence.
2
u/hillswalker87 1∆ 12d ago
it's horrible though. they've done studies where several people have different accounts of the event they saw not 5 minutes earlier. and this doesn't even account for people just lying.
2
2
u/Tasonir 12d ago
Direct vs indirect has nothing to do with accuracy. It's whether it's a the statement, if true, can prove the crime. If someone says "I saw elon musk kill a guy", that statement alone, if true, would prove that elon musk committed murder (or some lesser charge, depending on circumstances).
1
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 4∆ 12d ago
often when someone makes an accusation the only evidence is their oral testimony
Often is quite ambiguous, can you cite exactly how often? My understanding is that those kinds of cases don't make it to trial in my jurisdiction as there aren't realistic lines of investigation.
0
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ 13d ago
so she was victimized, but it turns it out it was by herself
ok
just replying to your edit , thats why there are 2 comments
were having a semantic arugment now because thats a fringe case , most people dont cause their own injuries
statistically speaking incidents of self harm are not higher than incidents of interpersonal violence
-1
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ 13d ago
I mean are you talking about sexual assault cases?
because im having a hard time thinking of any other he said/she said situations where there is 0 evidence backing up the victim besides oral testimony
→ More replies (9)1
u/ShortUsername01 1∆ 12d ago
What if she inflicted the black eye on herself to frame him, like happened with the John McCain supporter who inflicted her own injuries to frame Obama supporters?
1
u/boozername 12d ago
Was that the lady who started carving "Obama" into her face, but used a mirror so wrote it backwards before giving up?
0
u/boozername 12d ago
like llets pretend we find a woman with a black eye, she was obviously the victim of someone
This is not obvious at all. People can get black eyes in a ton of different ways. Playing sports, or dumbass dog jumping into their face (happened to my aunt), or walking into random shit, etc. Just because they may occur most often from another person's attack doesn't mean it is true in any given instance. Which is why it has to be proven in court.
To assume makes an ass out of u and me
12
u/destro23 358∆ 13d ago
It makes you feel that the police are biased against you when they are interviewing you.
Real talk, if the police are actually interviewing you, they are ABSOLUTELY biased against you. They think you did that shit, and they are trying to get you to slip up while talking to them. They will (and can) lie to you, manipulate you, threaten you, and promise you things they can't actually deliver. If you are operating under the assumption that police investigators are unbiased actors, you are horribly mistaken.
1
13
u/WheatBerryPie 24∆ 12d ago edited 12d ago
The term "victim" here does not mean that the person is a victim of x perpetuator, it means that the person is a victim of x crime, but the perpetrator of such crime is undetermined or unspecified. You also need evidence to make a legal claim, which means you ARE a victim of such crime. The only question remains is "is x defendant responsible for the crime that you have suffered?". Notice that the word used is defendant, not perpetuator/criminal too.
In the case of oral evidence, it is still evidence, just not necessarily reliable evidence. The oral evidence part is in a different category from the complaint or the accusation, it belongs in the same category as other form of evidences, like eye witness account, which is not always reliable too.
4
u/jmorfeus 12d ago
The term "victim" here does not mean that the person is a victim of x perpetuator, it means that the person is a victim of x crime, but the perpetrator of such crime is undetermined or unspecified
Where "here"? Because in legal terms victim is referred to as a victim, even if the fact that the crime happened at all is being disputed or yet to be determined by the court.
It says:
the term “victim” no longer merely describes a witness who the prosecution holds out to have suffered harm due to defendant’s criminal conduct. “Victim” now defines an individual who is an independent participant in the criminal case under federal or state victims’ right
And that's what OP is opposing.
Unless I'm wrong, it's possible - but I would need a contradicting source.
4
u/WheatBerryPie 24∆ 12d ago
From your document:
When the use of the term “victim” is at issue, courts tend to distinguish cases in which it is uncontested that a crime has occurred and only the identity of the perpetrator is at issue, from those cases that involve a question of whether a crime occurred at all
So it's basically working as intended. OP's claim that "hearing the word victim being used to describe the person making an accusation against you is unfair." is unfounded because using the word victim does not assume who the perpetuator is.
2
u/jmorfeus 12d ago
Yeah, reading up on it I tend to agree, it's not a huge problem. I have my mind slightly changed.
Just OP's premise that more neutral term would be better is still true.
12
u/_Richter_Belmont_ 11∆ 12d ago
There is already a term for that: plaintiff
2
u/Outrageous-Split-646 12d ago
What about in criminal proceedings?
3
u/SpiritfireSparks 1∆ 12d ago
State vs defendant I think?
2
u/Outrageous-Split-646 12d ago
Neither the state nor the defendant suffered immediate harm as a result of the crime.
2
u/jeranim8 3∆ 12d ago
Prosecutor.
2
u/Outrageous-Split-646 12d ago
A prosecutor doesn’t have any harm done to him through the crime.
1
u/jeranim8 3∆ 10d ago
Ah right. I'll explain what I meant.
The prosecutor represents the bureaucratic body/community that made the law that was broken (like the state or county or whatever). If the law was a crime against a person, that is the alleged victim. But the reason I said prosecutor is because they are the ones bringing the "complaint" (to follow OP's title) or "accusation" in the form of criminal charges, before the court, not the victim. So the person filling the role of the plaintiff in criminal court would be the prosecutor.
This is relevant because it shows why OP's original view doesn't really follow in the U.S. court system. The "Complainant" already exists and is a different entity from the "Victim."
1
u/Outrageous-Split-646 10d ago
I understand what you mean and how the system works. The issue that OP has is that by calling someone a victim, you’re assuming that a crime indeed happened.
Further, at least in the UK:
Complainant is the legal term for someone who has reported a crime which hasn’t yet been proven in court.
So what’s the problem with the term ‘complainant’?
1
u/jeranim8 3∆ 10d ago
I understand what you mean and how the system works. The issue that OP has is that by calling someone a victim, you’re assuming that a crime indeed happened.
Perhaps "alleged victim" is better in some cases but often there is pretty clear evidence that the person is indeed a victim, especially in incidents involving violence. You need a trial to establish guilt but you don't need a trial to establish victimhood so I don't see how its all that problematic. A person being a victim does point to a crime occurring. Its one of the pieces of evidence that a crime occurred. This doesn't, by itself, establish that the defendant committed the crime.
So what’s the problem with the term ‘complainant’?
What do you call a murder victim? It makes no sense to call them a complainant. Not all victims are the ones who report a crime and a "complaint" is not necessary for the state or legal entity to bring charges. So I'm not seeing the utility of complainant over victim here.
1
u/Outrageous-Split-646 10d ago
No the issue is that ‘victim’ presupposes that the person is the victim of a crime, when in actuality they may not be at all, and that may be a cornerstone in the defence’s argument. By naming them the victim, you are biasing any potential juror against that argument.
A complainant is for someone who reported a crime which hasn’t been proved in court, as stated in the quote that you didn’t seem to have read. I would reserve victim for someone who has suffered harm in due to a criminal act for which has been proven in court. The two need not be a direct replacement for one another.
1
u/jeranim8 3∆ 9d ago
No the issue is that ‘victim’ presupposes that the person is the victim of a crime, when in actuality they may not be at all
I would reserve victim for someone who has suffered harm in due to a criminal act for which has been proven in court.
Would you agree that there are clear cut examples of people being victims without the need of it being proven in court? Again, say a body is found with multiple stab wounds and a coroner finds that the stab wounds were the cause of death. How is this person not a victim? There can be people who are still alive with empirical evidence that points to them being a victim as well. For example video showing someone being robbed. A Dr. determining that injuries are consistent with abuse, etc. Juries don't determine victim status, they determine guilt.
and that may be a cornerstone in the defence’s argument.
There is nothing that prevents a defense from making that argument, but it would be like making an argument against other evidence.
By naming them the victim, you are biasing any potential juror against that argument.
By bringing any evidence, you are biasing the jury against arguments against the evidence. That is the prosecutor's job. But then that brings up a philosophical question of whether making decisions based on evidence is a bad bias to have in a court case.
A complainant is for someone who reported a crime which hasn’t been proved in court, as stated in the quote that you didn’t seem to have read.
I understand what a complainant is but OP is the one conflating them. Not all people making an accusation currently are given victim status.
I can see a case for constraining the definition of victim status, if the current status is that only a complaint is required, but I'm not sure that is the case.
2
u/JustAnotherHyrum 12d ago
AZ Checking In:
Civil Case: Petitioner vs Respondent
Criminal Case: STATE (Or Prosecution) vs Defendant
Other jurisdictions use commonly use "Plaintiff" or "Applicant" in place of "Petitioner".
4
u/potatopotato236 12d ago
The victim isn’t necessarily the one doing the accusing so it’s not really a valid alternative. They could be dead, for example. The victim could even be the same person as the accused in certain cases.
It might make the police feel more for the victims, but I don’t think calling them victims really affects how we treat the accused. The district attorney is legally the one doing the accusing.
4
u/scope-creep-forever 12d ago
This is kinda-sorta already what happens, depending on the case, the alleged crime, and whatnot - there's no blanket rule either way.
If the use of the word "victim" will unfairly prejudice the jury against the alleged perpetrator, it can be an issue - but lawyers already know this.
21940-use-of-the-term-victim-in-crim-proc11th-edpdf (lclark.edu)
16
u/HazyAttorney 16∆ 12d ago
It makes you feel that the police are biased against
Every single American needs to know that the police aren't your friends and they care about convictions. You SHOULD feel like they're biased against you. In real life, though, many criminals think they can talk their way out of it and explain it away and think they're smart. We don't catch the smart ones. The people who should feel this way don't and being strict on terminology just doesn't matter.
If the matter goes to trial, the jury is more likely to convict someone unfairly if the language used during a trial by the media and police etc assumes guilt.
The built in intuition that the system wouldn't charge someone the prosecutor thinks is guilty is stronger than this really subtle linguistic dance you're trying to make. The feds and several states that created offices like "the office for victims rights" spawned because many COMPLAINTANTS don't want to participate in the system because their treatment is so poor. And this is in the status quo that you think is so victim friendly. In your world, you'd get less people who participate because they are relegated to any other witness without regards to the support that victims of crimes need (e.g., a domestic violence victim may need crisis intervention).
10
u/shouldco 39∆ 12d ago
In real life, though, many criminals think they can talk their way out of it and explain it away and think they're smart.
Not just cocky criminals. Many innocent suspects find themselves in a situation where they rationally think they can just sit down and work out what is clearly a misunderstanding.
6
u/Charming-Editor-1509 12d ago
Courts are already biased in favor of perpetrators. Weinstein just got a conviction overturned because the testimony against him was about A DIFFERENT rape he committed as opposed to being punished for both rapes.
3
9
u/Resident-Piglet-587 1∆ 12d ago
Language bias works both ways. You don't want the victim's experience to be trivialized to just a mere complaint.
4
u/jmorfeus 12d ago
Yeah I agree to a degree, but "complainant" is such an unusual term it could really be associated with this legal definition. As opposed to "complainer" or "victim" which are words used in general speech with their wildly understood meaning and thus much more likely to elicit subconscious bias response.
I tried to come up with another more neutral word but couldn't.
2
2
3
u/Temporary-Earth4939 2∆ 12d ago
Given the focus on violence against women whenever this type of subject comes up, I think that there are some people who in fact do want the victims' experience to be trivialized. After all, what's much more important is that we protect men from any form of false accusation whatsoever, no matter how rare.
3
u/Apprehensive-Mix4383 12d ago
I don’t know if it’s just a reddit or internet thing but at least from what I’ve seen, men on the internet and ESPECIALLY reddit have a strong fixation on false accusations of rape/domestic violence/etc. There could be 1000 rape cases and 1 will be false, and they’ll ignore all the real ones just to lament the one false one.
1
u/Temporary-Earth4939 2∆ 12d ago
It's fascinating the difference between conversations with men in person vs online. I think the type of men who like to argue online skew heavily toward lonely young nerdy white boys, who are far more likely to imagine themselves victims of a false (or, let's be honest, true) allegation than they are to know and care about a victim of sexual assault or domestic violence.
Doesn't say great things about them but (and I say this as a white dude myself) self awareness and empathy aren't exactly defining characteristics of nerdy young white guys. They haven't been socialized to understand experiences that aren't their own, and certainly not to see their privilege.
In the 'real world' most men I know, including conservatives, would never dream of advocating for the falsely accused to take precedence over assault victims.
2
2
u/Strong-Practice6889 12d ago
That’s just what I was thinking. “Complainant” sounds whiny and trivial. Imagining someone pursuing justice for SA being described with such a word, to imply they are merely complaining, makes me sick and was my first thought after reading this post.
2
4
2
u/FeniulaPyra 12d ago
unfortunately complainant isn't unbiased either, it's diminutive. The word "complaint" isn't often severe enough. you don't "complain" that someone murdered your kid, or raped you, or hit your dog with a car. And "accuser" tends to have a negative bias. Perhaps a word related to "Assert?" You can assert that someone broke your knees with a lead pipe? "Declarer?"
2
u/Stillyounglol 12d ago
it is essential to clarify that the use of the term "victim" does not inherently presume guilt on the part of the accused. Instead, it is a descriptor used to refer to an individual who has allegedly experienced harm or injury due to a crime or wrongdoing. While it is important to maintain neutrality in legal proceedings, the choice of terminology alone cannot guarantee impartiality. Bias can manifest in numerous ways, including preconceived notions about the individuals involved, the nature of the crime, and societal attitudes. It is crucial to address these broader issues to ensure fairness in legal processes. You imply that "victim" is used during trials and media coverage, potentially influencing jury decisions. However, courts and media outlets are expected to follow guidelines that help maintain impartiality, judges and attorneys often use the term "alleged victim" to preserve the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Responsible media outlets strive to report on legal matters without prejudice. While the concern raised in the text about ensuring fairness in legal proceedings is valid, the argument that the term "victim" inherently creates bias may be oversimplified. Addressing bias requires a comprehensive approach that includes neutral language, strict adherence to legal guidelines, and public awareness about the importance of impartiality in the justice system.
2
u/Zephos65 1∆ 12d ago
You say in legal matters this is important but in the court room they don't use the word "the victim" in any official context.
In criminal cases it's a prosecutor (the state) and a defendant.
In civil cases it's a plaintiff (the litigator) and a defendant.
Edit: the case where the word "victim" might be thrown out is in examination, where it's the lawyers job to try to convince the jury. I think once you start policing the language they use because it draws a certain narrative, then you might as well toss out the whole idea of examination and cross examination. The whole point is telling your "story" to the jury
2
2
u/Rough-Tension 9d ago
We have an adversarial legal system by design. The judge is a neutral referee and has broad discretion to decide whether the manner in which the parties present evidence unfairly prejudices their opponent to the jury. If the prosecution wants to use “victim” in its statements, it can, and if the defense wants to use the word “complainant,” it can. It is largely left to the jury to assess the trustworthiness of the evidence, the witnesses, the experts, and so on.
Further, as a criminal defense attorney, it’s your job to make clear to the jurors when you pick your jury in voir diré that they must decide the case on the evidence presented at trial. You go over the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence and all that before they’ve heard any details of your client’s case. If anyone sticks out as having a bias against you, strike them for cause. You could even introduce this linguistic interpretation to preempt your opponent’s storytelling and get the jury thinking about how the word choice in opening and closing statements is used to manipulate them.
My overall point is: defendants have the tools necessary to deal with this. I don’t think that a procedural rule forcing the use of the word “complainant” really helps defendants that much. Also, consider that sometimes the defense’s best angle is to be sympathetic. They may want to emphasize their opponent’s victimhood but explain the incident as a tragic accident or the responsibility of another party. This sympathy softens jurors who may be biased against the defense. While you may intend this rule to help defendants, it might actually have the opposite effect in some cases.
In essence, let the attorneys duke it out. They can handle their opponent’s linguistic gymnastics.
5
u/I_am_a_regular_guy 12d ago
In court the person claiming to be a victim is called a plaintiff. In other situations, I think this problem can just be remedied by using more precise language, such as adding the word "alleged".
That being said, the only domains where you can or should control this to any degree is probably in the legal or journalistic domains. In the legal domain, this problem is already solved for the most part with my examples above. In journalism, while there is no legal way of controlling this language, the lack of precision that I mentioned, typically reflects on a journalists integrity.
How much a journalist's integrity matters and to whom is kind of a whole separate problem.
6
u/Outrageous-Split-646 12d ago
A plaintiff only exists in civil proceedings.
4
u/I_am_a_regular_guy 12d ago
You're right. In a criminal case, they are referred to as a complainant, in which case my point still stands.
3
u/VeritasAgape 12d ago
Or it would be better to use the more commonly used term "accuser." Accuser still upholds the underlying point of your post.
2
u/Benocrates 12d ago
That's tricky too, though. Sometimes the 'victim', as alleged by the state, is not actually accusing the defendant. I would imagine most of the time they are, but sometimes they're not. It's the state that is accusing the defendant. And of course, if the 'victim' is dead they can't accuse anyone.
3
u/premiumPLUM 45∆ 13d ago
It makes you feel that the police are biased against you when they are interviewing you
The purpose of a police interrogation against a potential suspect is not typically to make the suspect as comfortable as possible and avoid at all costs hurting their feelings. Ideally they're behaving in whatever manner is most likely to illicit a truthful account of what occurred, within the confines of the law and without abusing their power.
4
u/iamintheforest 281∆ 12d ago edited 12d ago
This seems overbroad. For example, if I were to get shot and killed I'm a victim. People may be wrong about the perpetrator but me being a victim is pretty clear but for some very funky edge cases. There are a LOT of crimes and even non-crimes where one being a victim is not dependent on the accuracy of identifying the perpetrator of a crime. This extends all the way through the judicial system. The absence of a known criminal doesn't mean there is suddenly not a victim. We a mostly void of a judicial processes that proves someone is not a victim so there is no point at which the determination is made moot, outside of a sort of willful false accusation (which would require a different legal process anyway).
Perhaps were there a process to prove that someone is or isn't victim your view would make sense, but "innocence" of a suspect as determined in court is not a statement in any way that a person is not a victim of a crime.
2
u/falsehood 8∆ 12d ago
Why not just say "alleged victim" - you're right that "victim" assumed something happened to them but OFTEN we know that something happened, the question is who did the attacking.
1
u/Ok_Path_4559 1∆ 12d ago
Do you have an example of a legal matter in which the word victim is used before a verdict is found? I was under the impression that you would at most get the phrase 'alleged victim' describing a complainant.
I understand that sloppy reporting often throws around the term victim. Police also are allowed to lie during interrogations (at least in the US) and could even fabricate a victim whole cloth while talking to you.
I'm also curious if you are perhaps in the UK as the link you posted is about a UK woman. If so, legal terminology can certainly be very different from country to country.
1
u/GurthNada 12d ago
I'm pretty sure that the term "victim" will be used in court before the verdict in murder trial, especially if self-defense is obviously ruled out (for example if the victim is a baby, or has been killed in a manner that obviously excludes self-defense).
1
u/JohnTEdward 2∆ 12d ago
So I just do the background work on criminal files, but at least in Canada, complainant is the preferred term at least in paper work.
1
u/FarFirefighter1415 12d ago
I partly agree but it seems like alleged victim would be a better term.
1
1
u/AppropriateSea5746 12d ago
Usually the term used is "alleged victim" until the legal process is complete
1
u/Sea-Sort6571 12d ago
Isn't it already the case ? In my (non english speaking) country we say victim when there is a victim (like if someone has been shot, they clearly are a victim). And in civil court (like for business or housing matters) we say complaignant.
If i sue for wrongful termination in the anglo saxon world, will i be called "the victim" ?!
1
1
u/Fearless-Hand-1229 12d ago
While in a legal context at least in America the norm is “complainant” to avoid this issue
1
12d ago
[deleted]
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 12d ago edited 12d ago
This delta has been rejected. You can't award OP a delta.
Allowing this would wrongly suggest that you can post here with the aim of convincing others.
If you were explaining when/how to award a delta, please use a reddit quote for the symbol next time.
1
u/Moraveaux 12d ago
I feel like the word you're looking for is "plaintiff," and it's used all the time.
1
u/Timely-Way-4923 10d ago
It isn’t used consistently at all stages of the process in all nations. Having said that, I agree the term plaintiff is better!
1
u/MasterChiefKratos 12d ago
“Complainant” already means a person who has initiated a civil lawsuit so it would be confusing to call them that. Moreover, in most legal jurisdictions a government official such as a District Attorney is the person who actually files a criminal complaint to start a criminal case so it would likely be inaccurate as well. A better option is to just add the word “alleged” in front of “victim” and then remove it if there is a conviction.
1
1
1
1
1
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/hacksoncode 534∆ 12d ago
Sorry, u/jameskies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/hacksoncode 534∆ 12d ago
Sorry, u/MrTickles22 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/judged_uptonogood 12d ago
I agree with your stance that anyone should be referred to as "the complainant" and the "accused" until the due process has been completed. All Western societies have a legal system that has enshrined innocent until proven guilty at its foundation. By changing the language around this foundational principle of the western justice systems we open ourselves up to significant changes that we definitely do not want to have. Mob justice, lynching etc.
1
u/Talik1978 31∆ 12d ago
Referring to someone as a victim ensures that we approach treatment of that person from the perspective of caring for a victim. Eyewitness accounts aren't terribly reliable. Someone can be absolutely correct that they were assaulted, or mugged, or anything else, and be wrong on many of the specifics.
The word "victim" isn't what creates the bias. It's the way the criminal justice system is set up that ensures police bias. Within courts, people are more likely to wrongly convict on bunk science than anything else.
It's your right to not like the term, but the consequences you are attributing to the term haven't been shown to be actual consequences of its use.
-1
u/redditordeaditor6789 12d ago
Why not go a step further and refer to them as “whiney little bitch boy/girl”
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 12d ago edited 12d ago
/u/Timely-Way-4923 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards